Fair enough. Ukraine will naturally seek to take back territory in more force but I'm not sure it can tolerate some more thousands casualties as well. I got some questions to ask if you don't mind, since you have studied the tactical situation really closely.
Was Ukraine able to replace the relatively big hardware losses in 2014? Tanks, APCs, aircrafts etc? Is it autonomous enough in military industry and can it build its own T-90s, APCs, SPAs, S-300 or Sukhois. I recall some military plants shared the manufacturing process with Russia (and vice versa of course). In short, can it compete in long term with no foreign aid, against a technologically and logistically superior permanent russian force in east ukraine that has also the luxury of long range support from the borders? Most key cities in the east are within reach of russian long range AAA, tactical missiles etc. In case ukrainian army approaches in large numbers there, russians can hit without actually invading, as probably has already happened.
Do we know about the situation of the separatist army deeper in their "republic". UKR army surely is reorganizing and you are probably right it will perform better next time but I suspect Russia has a plan on its own to recruit, train and equip those units better and as we speak it might still sneaking personnel and hardware across the "thin" borders. Population in the east, favors Russia by a significant margin and despises the ukrainian army (that has also shelled civilians in big urban areas like Donetsk). While they are not so enthusiastic to join Russia, they do prefer to keep an autonomy. So while Ukraine still technically considers those territories own soil, even in the case of a military win, people there would treat the victors more like an invading force.
I still think, both Ukraine and Russia will avoid a larger, damaging confrontation. A lot will depend on the political situation and if the DPR is actually able to survive politically and economically. On that and given that even Crimea is not looking that good right now, I have some doubts. I dont really agree with the coup on Putin and a civil war prospect though. Imo Russia is strengthening its position worldwide, a lot consider them as the force that is actually bringing an end to the Syrian war and ISIS terror. Latest events like the assasination of the russian ambassador from a jihadist lunatic have reinforced this image to the world. Amazingly, they have even teamed up with Erdgoan's Turkey lately, a NATO member. And there is still the prospect of teaming up with Trump's USA against islamic state. That will be a big victory for Putin. And whatever serious western leaning opposition is left, is somewhat losing its purpose now. Because West is starting to look a bit more like Russia now instead of the opposite, more conservative, nationalistic, anti-islamist and xenophobic.

I didnt say they are useless. Its just a fact they cant do much in case of a second russian ivasion. They are sufficient enough to drive back a makeshift force of middle aged volunteers but they are probably no match for a coordinated russian army counter attack. The only thing that hold back the russians was international outcry. Thats what I call support. Political pressure, sanctions etc. I didnt mean the romanian army helmets. If political pressure gradually dissolves, with the current confusion on the US/EU camp, Russia will have a lot of more space to play.

Is there a realistic possibility for Ukraine to make serious territory gains with no support from the West? And is the divided and strategically confused West with Putin's buddies leading now in US and UK and soon in France, willing to assist Ukraine in any way? Not in the next ten years imo. Whatever is happening right now is of very little significance compared to the bigger picture.

I think its the law of nature these types of leadership to become corrupt due to the concentration of power. Castro did relatively well since he was almost half a century in rule and had to face isolation, enormous pressure and a constant threat to his life. Most would switch to a lunatic dictator mode under these circumstances. We cant really judge him by today's standards, he rose in a time when even the democratic West was backing worse guys around the globe. I much prefer my flawed democracy so far but if things go really wrong with our capitalist system(its fine when markets work but its not human centered and that shows when things go downhill) chances are that types like Castro would be the ones we would all look upon and not a career politician employee made in Harvard. It is just that these people are like an emergency measure and not meant to stay forever in power. Cuba and Castro were frozen in time in a way, stuck in a revolutionary mode that never really had the chance to evolve or mature.

RIP. A great personality with true love for his country in my opinion. Although authoritarian, for his era, he was a much better alternative than Batista and other right wing dictators. Cuba eliminated illiteracy(down to 2% comparable only to scandinavian countries) and offered high quality health care to its people. He became obsolete as most of these types of leaderships and that showed in the last decades in a morally and economically decaying Cuba. I hope democratic societies wont have to go back to these regimes though to maintain a humane standard of living if things go wrong with world capitalism.

I dont believe the elections were rigged but nobody knows 100% really. There was an imported propaganda war for sure but the fatal blow was inflicted by an insider, as Hilary herself is blaming the last minute FBI intervention for her election loss http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=0

Maybe they didnt want to risk direct confrontation with Russia and lose everything. No matter how well equipped the US military is, they havent face something more lethal than a 3rd world country's arsenal. Who would support Clinton in something so risky as this, while half public opinion has turned pro-russian the most in the whole american history? Fighting ISIS and islamists is the new trend and Trump adapted better to it. Getting from the back door in Syria and getting closer with Putin and Assad seems like a decent alternative plan in a battle that seems lost. After all, from what I can tell, Trump's main concern is China. This is the country that considers the bigger threat to US interests and probably foreign policy will shift accordingly towards there.

Targetting hospitals is a war crime no doubt. Still exercized by both sides as this and other articles indicate. I'm not debating the cruel and unlawful means of warfare here. Without wanting to sound cynical, its still no proof of "ethnic cleansing" , rather an inhuman way of bringing the opposition to its knees, as part of a military operation rather than means of extermination of certain ethnic/religious groups. I havent read reports of army rounding up people, or massively executing them for instance. And while in the above situations there were no militants nearby, it is a widespread tactic of guerilla warfare to fortify in those complexes. Once this happens a few times, then all hospitals, fortfied or not, are probably turned into priority targets unsurprisingly.
But this all has to come to an end. The truth is that rebels have achieved pretty much nothing those six years of conflict. Not even badly needed wider international support. Public opinion has turned against them as most associate them with Al-Nusra and ISIS. Ultimately, if Assad's agenda was to deport population opposing him as you say, then they served him right by giving him the excuse to do so under the disguise of a miltary operation against "terrorism". It's just madness pouring more gasoline in the fire of this conflict. Weapons flow in Syria, must be cut off. The conlfict must die out. Then a combined international effort respecting Syria's sovereignity should begin to shape the next day in the war-torn land.
PS,I don't know sometimes I think Trump was needed by the deeper american industrial/miltary complex, to reset world policy and maybe gain something from the bleeding Middle east strategy by adapting to the new situation. The pawns(rebels) are discarded, and the new strategy is to approach Russia/Syria in a theatre US would otherwise be left out.

I believe a lot will change once the fighting eventually and offcially dies. The millions of people living in camps in neighbouring countries will soon have to make a choice. If there isnt any conflict there will be no "offcial" reason for them to stay there, let alone countries to accept more of them. If Assad despite having neutralized Al Nusra/ISIS/armed rebels decides to keep on with genocide of returning refugees then he deserves a drone or something to cease his insanity. I doubt that will happen and any big power like Russia will assist in such a crime. I don't think there is hard evidence of "ethnic cleansing" so far, it is a really heavy word to use imo for mostly crude bombing of cities. Mass murder, executions and other savage actions (like eating hearts of the dead), have been widely reported on christians, alawites, other minorities and captured army soldiers though. I'm at least relieved this monstrosity will be brought to end sooner or later.